jeudi 7 avril 2016

Several Debates From a Status of Mine - on Homosexual Agenda, on Robb Thurston, on Josh Weed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(status)

The true goal of
THE HOMOSEXUAL
AGENDA IS NOT
MARRIAGE; IT IS THE
CRIMINALISATION
OF CHRISTIANITY.

I

NP

Yes of course

II

RBS

No point in me calling bullshit on this. Bullshit doesn't even being to address this. Unbelievable bullshit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exactly do you mean?

Have you not followed the news about that judge getting in gaol because she refused to officiate at a gay marriage or that baker getting sued because refusing to bake a wedding cake with two men or that other baker getting NOT getting sued because refusing to bake a wedding cake with "we believe in God's marriage"?

What is that, unless it's criminalisation of Christianity?

RBS

Enforcement of existing law. Your private religious views do not allow you to discriminate on the basis of race. It is entirely appropriate for such discrimination based on sexuality to be litigated. If you are an officer of the law, you are not relieved of your duty by your religious beliefs - that would be abusing your office to enforce religion under the color of State authority.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Your private religious views do not allow you to discriminate on the basis of race."

I heard of no bakery trying to discriminate against negroes or black/white weddings getting sued.

AND such discrimination would NOT be Christian.

"It is entirely appropriate for such discrimination based on sexuality to be litigated."

No, it is not a discrimination parallel to that against a race or an ethnic group one is born to.

I have not heard a single story in which a bakery refused a wedding because bridegroom previous to marriage was sodomite or bride previous to marriage lesbian.

It is a discrimination based on CHOICE, not an sth you are born to do.

"If you are an officer of the law, you are not relieved of your duty by your religious beliefs - that would be abusing your office to enforce religion under the color of State authority"

State authority has no business legalising (not really even depenalising), and still less institutionalising sodomy or similar perversions.

The judge refusing to carry out "the duty" newer legislation had "imposed" on her was defending real authority.

It is like opposing a Nazi takeover or a Communist takeover.

III

Robb Thurston

Ami(e) de David Bawden

(=Friend of Pope Michael)

Did your Bishop tell you that? Did he say to write it, or are you anarchistic? Advise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Obedient to Pope Felix III:

Felix is often quoted as saying “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men—when we can do it—is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

Robb Thurston

Has Felix III been subjected to the Holy Office? Is this idea "“Not to oppose error ...."obligatory to all Christians, or an option? Advise. And make sure a Bishop authorizes the advisory. I am not worried if it is a Vatican I Bishop or a Vatican II Bishop, but It should, if possible not be an anarchist. Exclude Freemason Bishops, please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is obligatory to ALL Christians in so far as they have possibility.

It is not an option. It is for certain situations in which one need not be "an anarchist" in order to be acting as some would say "anarchically".

Pope Felix III need not be SUBJECTED to the Holy Office, since he is a deceased POPE.

And in situations like these, no, foregoing the authorisation of a bishop is NOT obligatory, because one cannot be reached.

Also, the position is shared by Bishop Williamson whom I do not consider a freemason.

Also, I have had only approvals for whatever posts I have been showing Pope Michael because I wanted a better opinion than my own.

IV

MS

This is true, because the moral gap between the two is such that they cannot coexist. They can only coexist as long as both ignore each other, however as homosexual movement gets more traction, it is starting to show how incapable it is of tolerating contrary opinions. Evil can never be truly tolerant, because it uses tolerance card in a hypocritical way, as a means to get the upper hand, and when it feels it has a accomplished this it goes on the attack trying to eliminate good.

RBS

Precisely. And thus the evil intolerance of rigid Christian dogma is, once again exposed. We've had this argument again and again - They're forcing us to tolerate interracial marriage. They're abolishing slavery. They won't let us burn heretics and witches. But Christianity will, as it has so many times, adapt to the new reality and catch up to modern morality. Fortunately for all of us, the Bible is far more plastic than the Koran. It will be much harder to bring Islam out of the 7th Century.

MS

You are not talking about Catholicism, but protestant America.

America has never been a Christian country anyhow

You will never find Catholic church change any of its dogmas, including teaching on homosexuality, adultery, fornication etc.

If I had known I would hear (or read, actually) such a thing, I would not have added you.

You stay for this debate, if you like, but after that I am going to unfriend you.

"They're forcing us to tolerate interracial marriage."

Christianity is for interracial marriage. If not always for imposing it in a state where marrying a black and white couple is against the law, at least for such evil laws getting abolished and for marrying such a couple if they can get to another state with better laws.

I am talking about genuine Christianity, that is Roman Catholicism.

Protestants have gone down the sink several directions, including to racism and including to basically founding YOUR outlook, as it now seems to me to be.

[That is : as it was unknown to me while making the frien requests.]

"They're abolishing slavery."

Catholics did that centuries ago in Europe, and I mean very many centuries ago. That was one of our disgusts with Islam across the Mediterranean, that it was slave hunting.

However, Popes have on one occasion at least allowed Portugal retaliating slave hunt, which it seems Portugal extended to encompass black slaves even from non-Muslim parts of Africa.

I am not saying "from non-slavery" parts of Africa, such did not exist (or perhaps in Kalahari or sth).

"They won't let us burn heretics and witches."

Burning them is not always an obligation. For instance, if they recant or repent, it is not an obligation even under Medieval legislation.

Nor is it for every state an obligation to have such legislation, a religiously mixed state can for reasons of peace be a legitimate compromise, and in such a thing heretics are not hunted.

ALSO it is very arguable that heretics of a longstanding sect which has ethnicities behind it (like Protestantism now) on the one hand are less culpable (they aren't raised as Catholics, like the Albigensians or at worst their grandfathers had been), on the other hand have less likelihood of disturbing peace because their sect has had to deal with social realities relating to it in the past, and therefore actually should be treated more like a pagan ethnicity which needs missionaries than a heretical one, having just rebelled against the Church and needing crusaders or inquisitors.

Witches have been allowed to live after exorcism or after abjuration and making penitentiary pilgrimages to Santiago.

Witches have been allowed to live (on initiative of inquisitors!) when it has been apparent that proofs generally accepted for guilt, like in this case confession, can be manipulated so that innocent or weak persons appear guilty when they aren't.

But that said, burning heretics and witches is preferrable to letting heretics and witches decide how Catholics should act via heresy and witchcraft inspired legislation harrassing Catholics just trying to keep their hands clean from participation in evil or their mouth clean by bearing witness against it.

MS

added just after

his first comment

This world has always been a battlefield between good and evil. The two can never coexist peacefully

V

Francis Dominic

(Seminarian with David Bawden/Pope Michael)

I don't think all homosexuals have this as a goal but Satan is using them for that purpose among other things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The meme did not say "the agenda of all homosexuals", the meme said "the homosexual agenda" - as it exists in texts and in application of texts irrespectively of whether its supporters are aware or unaware homosexual or tolerant heterosexuals.

[Previous was liked by Francis Dominic after me writing following too:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am for instance certain that Josh Weed does not have this as a goal, he is homosexual, he has a normal marriage (OK, he has only three daughters after eleven years, that is a bit suspicious, but perhaps Mormons allow even "normal" couples contreceptives, perhaps he has another child already after I checked last time).

So, though he is homosexual, he stands (at least in his example given) clearly outside homosexual agenda and therefore Satan is not using him for this goal.

Now, I just said to this other debater: "I have not heard a single story in which a bakery refused a wedding because bridegroom previous to marriage was sodomite or bride previous to marriage lesbian."

I should have added "and got sued for that".

But I have heard of Catholic or supposedly such pastoral imposing non-marriage for reason of homosexual orientation and I am suspecting Catholic clergy under whose successive pastoral cares I have been have taken turns in assuring I stay celibate due to some rumour I am homosexual, which I am even not.

I have dealt with the homosexual question in writing because I have wanted to show the homosexual agenda as unwarranted and the older legislation as NOT discriminating against any man or any woman due to his or her spontaneous preferences.

A zoophiliac has a right to marry, like anyone else, provided the person he or she marries is a human person and not a "personified" beast.

I am sorry, I slandered Josh Weed. In the meantime he has another daughter.

Oh hi.

I am Josh Weed.

I am a gay, Mormon man who is married to a woman. I have four daughters, one of whom is not featured in the photo on the header of this blog because she wasn't born yet. When she's old enough to realize this she's gonna be pissed, but as of now she can't talk yet, so I'm rolling with it.

No, he's not even a perv in the heterosexual way.

[After some hours]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Francis Dominic, I saw a like under the first comment where I made a distinction you had made, but none under the ensuing ones, where I made one which you had not made.

I thought the Catholic principles involved in this other case SHOULD be fairly obvious. Is Pope Michael a good seminary teacher?

Francis Dominic

I had not read the post close enough so when you made the first statement I realized my mistake and liked it. I was not interested in further communication. It was 3 or so in the morning here and needed to say my prayers and sleep. As far as your question about Pope Michael. I consider him very good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, three in the morning!

My sympathies!

In that case you have my full understanding.

Hope he (and you) are not praying for ME to become a seminarian, I could not stand that kind of life, though I admire the monks of Le Barroux and you who do.